APHC010085752022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 80/2022 Between: 1. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED., REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, HINDUPUR TOWN, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT. (POLICY NO.432404/31/2012/3772, VALID FROM 15.09.2011 TO 14.09.2012) ...APPELLANT AND 1. SMT PUJARI SREEDEVI, W/O. LATE P.JANARDHAN, AGED 42 YEARS 2. P KIRAN KUMAR, S/O. LATE P.JANARDHAN, AGED 19 YEARS, BOTH ARE CHANDAKACHERLA MADAKASIRA MANDAL, NOW RESIDING AT D.NO.24-4-46/52. VIDYANAGAR, NEAR SUGUR, HINDUPUR TOWN, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT. (CELL.96767 39066) 3. GANGADHAR, S/O VENKATADRI. AGED 55 YEARS. DRIVER-CUM- OWNER OF LUGGAGE AUTO NO.AP-02-V-9702, R/O. D.NO.6/350, VINAYAKNAGAR. SOMANDEPALLI VILLAGE AND MANDAL. ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying that the High court may be pleased to allow this appeal by setting aside the order and decree dated 20.03.2020 passed in MVOP No.51 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum - II Additional District Judge. Hindupur and dismiss the 2 VS,J MACMA No.80 of 2022 MVOP No.51 of 2018 filed by the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein / claim petitioners in the lower court against the Appellant herein / Respondent No.2 in the lower court and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings dated 20.03.2020 in MVOP No.51 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal — Cum — II Additional District Judge, Hindupur including execution proceedings and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. A JAYANTHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: 3 VS,J MACMA No.80 of 2022 JUDGMENT: The Insurance Company filed the present appeal against the order and decree 20.03.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.51 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Hindupur, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.9,34,000/- (Rupees Nine lakhs thirty four thousand only) to the petitioners/respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, as against the claim of Rs.10,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased Poojari Arun Kumar in a motor accident that occurred on 30.11.2011. 02. 02. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 03. The claimants filed the claim petition before the Tribunal under Sections 140 and 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rules 455 and 475 of A.P.M.V. Rules, for claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of death of one P. Arun Kumar in a road accident that occurred on 30.11.2011. 04. On 30.11.2011, Poojari Arun Kumar (deceased), along with N. Naresh Babu, proceeding in an Auto bearing No.AP02-Y-0943, from Kothacheruvu to Obuladevarapalli, that when the said Auto, after passing 1 KM from Locherla, at about 7.30 p.m., by that time, a Luggage Auto bearing No.AP02-V-9702, being driven by its driver, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against another Auto bearing No.AP02-Y-0943. As a result, Arun Kumar sustained injuries on his head and all over the body. Immediately, he was shifted to 4 VS,J MACMA No.80 of 2022 Government Hospital, Penukonda, for treatment and he succumbed to injuries, on the way. A case in Crime No.90 of 2011 was registered seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in the said accident, the petitioners, who are the mother and brother of the deceased, filed the claim petition against the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle. 05. While, the 1st respondent-owner of the vehicle remained ex parte, the 2nd respondent filed his written statement, denying that the alleged crime vehicle bearing No.AP02-V-9702 driven by its driver in rashly and caused the accident, that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Auto bearing No.AP02-Y-0943 only the accident occurred. The driver, owner and insurer of the Auto bearing No.AP02-Y-0943 are proper and necessary parties to the claim petition, on that ground, the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay compensation. The alleged crime vehicle, was not covered with valid RC, Fitness and permit and was used in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy. The driver of crime vehicle, had no valid and effective driving license at the time of accident and on that ground the claim petition is liable to be dismissed. The amount claimed by the claimants, is highly excessive and hence, it was prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 06. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the accident had occurred on 30.11.2011 in a rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending luggage Auto bearing Registration No.AP02-V-9702? 5 VS,J MACMA No.80 of 2022 2. Whether the driver of the offending Luggage Auto bearing No.AP02-V- 9702 was possessed a valid driving license, as on the material date of accident? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as prayed for? 4. To what relief?” 07. On behalf of the petitioners/claimants, P.Ws.1 & 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, R.W.s 1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B1 was marked. Exs.B1 to B8 were also marked. 08. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed partly the claim petition against respondent Nos.1 and 2, awarding compensation of Rs.9,34,000/- with interest @9% per annum from the date of claim petition, till the date of realization and directed respondents No.1 and 2 to deposit the said amount of compensation within one month from the date of the award. The compensation awarded was proportioned between the petitioners and they were given liberty to withdraw certain amount each and the balance amount was directed to be kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank for a period of two years. 09. Aggrieved by the said award, the respondent No.2/Insurance Company preferred the present appeal, contending that the driver of the crime vehicle bearing No.AP02-V-9702 was not having valid driving license at the time of accident and ought to have exonerated the insurance company from its liability. The driver and owner of Auto bearing No.AP02-Y-0943 in which the 6 VS,J MACMA No.80 of 2022 deceased was driving are the proper and necessary parties, hence non- joinder of necessary parties was also questioned. The quantum of compensation and rate of interest awarded to the petitioners was also questioned on the ground that it is exorbitant and excessive. It is, therefore, prayed to allow the appeal. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants/respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein has supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 11. Though notice was served on the 1st respondent/owner of the offending vehicle, there is no representation on his behalf. 12. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? 13. POINT: To prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Luggage Auto by respondent No.1, the claimants relied upon the evidence of P.W.2-eye witness and Exs.A1 and A4. The Tribunal, basing on the evidence of PW1 & PW2 coupled with Ex.A1 to A6, held that the accident occurred only due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle/Luggage Auto by respondent No.1, due to which, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries, on the way to the 7 VS,J MACMA No.80 of 2022 hospital. Therefore, the said finding of the Tribunal became final and need no interference in the absence of specific evidence. 14. As far as the non-joinder of necessary parties is concerned, it is settled law that the claimant is admittedly a third party and the claimant can file a petition against the Luggage Auto since the incident occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the Luggage Auto. 15. Coming to the quantum of compensation, it was the case of the claimants that the deceased used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month as a Sales Executive. However, no documentary evidence was filed before the Tribunal to show that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. The Tribunal has held that it was just and reasonable to assess the earning of deceased notionally as Rs.8,000/- per month which, in the opinion of this Court, is neither exorbitant nor excessive. 16. By taking the notional income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- per month and upon deducting 50% towards his personal expenses as the deceased was unmarried, his annual income would amount to Rs.48,000/- (Rs.8,000/- x 50% = Rs.4,000/- x 12) and after applying the relevant multiplier of ‘18’ applicable to the age of the deceased i.e., 20 years as per Ex.A2 Inquest Report and Ex.A3 Postmortem Report, as per the guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 1, the Tribunal has rightly arrived at Rs.8,64,000/- (Rs.48,000/- x 18) towards loss of future earnings and dependency, which, in the opinion of this Court, is just and reasonable and 1 2009 ACJ 1298 8 VS,J MACMA No.80 of 2022 requires no interference. Further, the amounts awarded under the conventional heads i.e., Rs.15,000/- towards loss of funeral charges and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, are also just and reasonable and this Court finds no reason to interfere with the same. Thus, the total compensation of Rs.9,34,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and cannot be said to be excessive or on higher side. The order passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity and requires no interference in this civil miscellaneous appeal. The point is answered accordingly. 17. So far as the liability to pay the compensation is concerned, it is to be noted that Ex.B1-Policy certificate would disclose that the crime Luggage Auto was validly insured with respondent No.2/Insurer and the policy was in force as on the date of accident. Though it was contended by respondent No.2/Insurer that the owner-cum-driver of the Auto did not possess valid driving license at the time of accident, which is clear violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, the fact remains that respondent No.2/insurer did not examine the RTA authorities, such as Motor Vehicle Inspector, to prove that the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle did not possess valid driving license. Admittedly, the burden lies on the insurer to prove that there is no valid license in favour of the driver of the vehicle, which the insurer has failed to discharge. 18. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds that the award passed by the Tribunal is well reasoned and needs no interference. 9 VS,J MACMA No.80 of 2022 19. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 27.01.2026 PBS